Re: [Development] Would it make sense to make QObject moveable in Qt 6?

On quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2016 14:05:56 PDT Kuba Ober wrote: > `QObject` is already pretty much a handle to the underlying data due to > pimpl. So that’s a good first step. Except that everything refers to QObjects by pointer. QObject is not a holder to the private data, its address *is*

[Development] Would it make sense to make QObject moveable in Qt 6?

`QObject` is already pretty much a handle to the underlying data due to pimpl. So that’s a good first step. To support this, the `QObject*` (and derived types) would be replaced with `QObject::Handle` that keeps a pimpl C pointer. E.g. we’d have `QObject::Handle * QObjectData::parent, QList

Re: [Development] Should qMetaTypeId() == qMetaTypeId() ?

On quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2016 15:23:01 PDT Marc Mutz wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, it's not, which doesn't make much sense, does it? No, but const types can't be registered as metatypes either. Shouldn't the caller drop the const qualifier on its own? > template > int qMetyTypeId()

[Development] Should qMetaTypeId() == qMetaTypeId() ?

Hi, Currently, it's not, which doesn't make much sense, does it? So, template int qMetyTypeId() { return qMetaTypeIdHelper::type>(); } ? (There's of course a lot more involved in this, registration should discard const, too, e.g.). Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz

[Development] HEADS-UP: Branching from '5.6' to '5.6.2' ongoing

Hi all, We have soft branched '5.6.2' from '5.6'. Final downmerge will happen after a week so there is enough time to start using '5.6.2' for fixes targeted to Qt 5.6.2 and finalize ongoing ones in '5.6'. br, Jani Jani Heikkinen Release Manager The Qt Company Elektroniikkatie 13 90590